Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[John214]

Well, we have some interesting perspectives coming from both sides, I am enjoying the discussion. But it seems we have become a little sidetracked. There are some valid questions for the Orthodox side which do need to be answered.

1. What, if anything, makes a council valid, and can you provide some Patristic support for your position? (i.e. some early pre-schism Father speaking about the nature of an ecumenical council)
2. How can a person define what is right doctrine, without a single head by which the truth can be known?

For the Catholic side we also have some questions though.

1)It has been mentioned that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly stated that the reason that Rome had it’s place was based on its imperial authority. Granted Rome rejected this, does it not show that at least the majority idea (within the East at the least) was that Rome’s primacy was based on this? Keep in mind this was in the 450s and that over 500 bishops attended.

1. How can we know that a Pope is valid, or legitimate, as has been said earlier. Are there not cases where a Pope declares a Pope from many years earlier anti-Pope? Supposing, I say that I would like to become a Catholic, but I believe the current Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope (I really don’t though), how could you assure me that he is indeed not an anti-Pope? (Note: it is not right to accuse the Orthodox side of having the same problem, as it means little if one Patriarch was an anti-Patriarch, given that he is neither the Supreme Head, nor infallible)
2. Related to question (2), if you answer that it is by the witness of the Vatican or Church Body, then does this not defeat the purpose of a single head which determines truth?

Steve B,
Steve B:

What do secular criteria have to do with apostolicity or importance for the Church? Church and state were diametrically opposed to each other. They were water and oil. Secular Rome was fiercely persecuting the Church.

Sure during the time of persecution the Church and State were opposed, but we don’t see any ecumenical councils coming out of that time period either. Constantine called the first ecumenical council, and he was barely even a Christian, if at all at that point. Both the Western and Eastern Church were extremely connected to the empire and the kings they supported, or who supported them.

This brings me to a fourth question for the RCC side, much has been said regarding how an Orthodox can determine the ecumenicalness of a Council, but a question I have for you is:

1. If the truth is guarded and protected, and to a large extent dictated (in a good way if the RCC is true) by the Bishop of Rome, then why are “Ecumenical” councils necessary? The word ecumenical means the whole, so it would only follow that it’s ecumenical nature comes from its representation of the whole Church. I will give a hypothetical situation to illustrate:

Example 4) Suppose the Church called an ecumenical council where all Bishops were represented, including the Pope. Suppose 700 Bishops were present. Now, suppose that the Council votes on an issue and 690 vote one way, and the Pope and 9 others vote against.

In example 4, which side would win, and could this council be called ecumenical? If it could not be called ecumenical then why not, and what would you call it?

Sorry RCC side for all the questions, I hope that by your answers we can clarify your position and also cause the Orthodox to have to respond as well. I do believe the Orthodox have enough questions on their hands now anyways!

Thanks everyone, and God Bless!

(P.S. I really would like to know all the answers to all the questions above, I have a general idea of some answers, but nothing concrete and nothing strongly for either side)

 

[John214]

Galdre,

Good to see you back, and thanks for the questions, I will let more intelligent persons than myself attempt an answer! Hahaha .

God Bless,

John

 

[Galdre]

Thanks, John, for the summary. To those I will add these, which still haven’t be answered (correct me if I missed it, please – the thread has grown very quickly in the last few days) since page 8:

Catholics:

If the jurisdictional powers of the bishop of Rome came by divine right, then why is it that these powers were rarely, if ever, exercised successfully in the early Church? Or were they, and I’m just not seeing it?

If communion with Rome was universally recognized as being necessary, then why did so many eastern churches not seem to mind going for extended periods of time out of communion with Rome?

Orthodox:

If Rome’s papist claims were unorthodox, then why do we never see any orthodox theologian take issue with their (blatant and explicit) claims? There are complaints, yes, about Rome’s pride and throne so high that she can’t talk to the easterners on the ground. But even in those instances, I have seen no doctrinal correction of Rome with regard to her own position.

Sincerely,
~Galdre

 

[Ignatios]

steve b:

AFTER Byzantium became Constatinople,(early 300’s) Church of Rome was still first even though the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople

the Orthodox Church never said that the Bishop of Rome does not occupy the First rank among the bishops and that was still so untill the schism in 1054ad

Cyprians writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity.

Cyprian also said :"…This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by falsehood; no one corrupt the truth of our faith by a faithless treachery. The episcopate is one; it is a whole in which each enjoys full possession."
And again: Here are Cyprian’s words at the opening of the Council: (Mansi, i. 951, quoted by Denny, Papalism, 581, p. 282.)"…“None of us setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.”, there is too much to list in here I suggest to read all about Cyprian and the councils of Carthage.

Irenaeus writes (late 100’s) all must agree with Church of Rome

enough has been said concerning this in the previous pages, if you choose to see the Orange as an Apple …well I cant do anything to make you see it the way it is but that does not change the fact that the Orange is an orange and the apple is an apple.

Ignatius writes (early 100’s) Church of Rome held the presidency

Rome held the presidency over what or whom?the whole Church? first I gnatius doesnt say that Rome held the presidency over any other Church and he doesnt say the word “over” accept when he said that Rome “presides over Love” not over the whole Churches, and then he confined the presidency of Rome to the “land of the Romans” …then Ignatius never mentioned the Bishop of Rome or his name not once , where in his other letters he mentioned the bishops and their names too, could it be that there was many churches or more then one ministery in Rome at that time and they were presided over by “presbyteries” surely there is some sources in history say that there was.
And then we can clearly see from Ignatius’s writting that the presidency of Rome over the whole Church did not exist for if it did this where we see it, if we just read on his letter to the Romans chapter nine:"…Chapter IX(9).-Pray for the Church in Syria.
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria,*** which now has God for its shepherd***, instead of me. **Jesus Christ alone will oversee **.
and let me throw one more thing from history to you but remmeber that there is a lot more then this to refute your claims from history, Eusebius, Church History (Book III) Chapter 36. Ignatius and His Epistles."…10. These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care diligently for it. "…hhhmmm wasnt that suppose to be the role of the bishop of Rome , if he existed or at least if he had supremacy as the RCC claims today??? I have to go now I will answer the rest later on maybe after our Pascha=Passover(Easter) is Over.

 

[Galdre]

With all due respect, but as a Roman Catholic this issue is above your pay-grade.

One last comment – I couldn’t leave this one alone. Perhaps I misunderstand you. If I do, then ignore the rest of this post. But it seems as though you are saying that Roman Catholics are somehow incapable of understanding the issues within the Orthodox churches. You seem to be denying to the non-Orthodox ex vi termini any right to criticize the practical expressions of Orthodox ecclesiology. Perhaps you could demonstrate how this particular expression is not true to the spirit of Orthodox ecclesiology. Or you could explain how tdgesq has misunderstood the situation, etc. But to deny to tdgesq any right to comment on the subject is logically equivalent to a Christian, having criticized the inconsistency between a moral relativist’s theory and his practice, being told that such a topic is “above his paygrade” because he is a Christian.

 

[tdgesq]

If the jurisdictional powers of the bishop of Rome came by divine right, then why is it that these powers were rarely, if ever, exercised successfully in the early Church? Or were they, and I’m just not seeing it?

I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too [by the bishop of Rome]. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (1)
. . .
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you [bishop of Rome] therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? (21)
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter 21.

Of course Tertullian was a heretic at this point, but that doesn’t change his testimony that in ca. 220 the Bishop of Rome was unilaterally exercising his power, invoking Matthew 16:18.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, Ch. 4, first edition:
4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?romancatholicism.org/jansenism/cyprian-church.htm

As you already noted, the second recension tones down some of what could be construed as pro-papal language. William Jurgens explains why this is in his Faith of the Early Fathers series. Even if you assume the worst (that Cyprian changed his mind), it doesn’t alter the fact that the notion was out there in ca. 251.

Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys to my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!
St. Ephraim (ca. 306-373), Homilies [4,1] from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, sec. 706.

As for Chalcedon and canon 28:

In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

Later on, Pope Leo received a letter from Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, who had played a part in the engineering of canon 28. Anatolius admitted to Pope Leo that the “entire force and confirmation” of the acts was reserved for the authority of “Your Beatitude,” meaning Pope Leo. Anatolius wrote that certain of the clergy at Constantinople wanted the canon. [PL 54: 1082-4] ancientpapacy.org/articles/chalcedon.htm

Be warned. This last one comes from a very pro-papal website, but I have actually seen the text of that letter before. It is forever lost to me though ever since CA purged the Eastern Christianity forum of the old posts.

By the way, I enjoyed your translation of the Irenaeus passage. Some people suggest that it’s a fallacious appeal to authority to rely upon experts in the field when it comes to linguistics. That is not true where it involves a highly specialized field like that one.

 

[steve_b]

Twenty eight (28) canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council:
… And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital…

exuse all if any mistakes I have made …this was my first posting , and any corrections would be appriciated

Welcome to the forum :tiphat:

Re: canon 28, it had problems and was rejected by pope Leo. Notice how the pope was defending the rights of other sees against Constantinople’s ambitions. For details
newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

 

[Ignatios]

steve b:

Welcome to the forum

Re: canon 28, it had problems and was rejected by pope Leo. Notice how the pope was defending the rights of other sees against Constantinople’s ambitions. For details

thank you very much for the welcoming and May GOD bless you,
that was true Pope Leo rejected it but that was only after his legate signed on the outcome of that council, and I believe that Pope Leo III accepted that council along with all its canons but dont have the time right now to bring it up for you hopefully next time I will, anyhow Rome accepted that particular canon in the year 1215ad>>> check it out for yourself …28th canon accepted by Rome
And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html

 

[steve_b]

Now, where does the authority of a council lie? Certainly, a large collection of godly bishops has great “moral authority,” but this is not what I’m talking about. On what basis can a council be considered authoritative? This is not a rhetorical question.

I have seen one model that can account for this: Cyprian’s. I quoted him about six pages ago, but here it is again:

Again, in his next letter to the bishop of Rome:

At least in Cyprian’s first conception (this seems to change later, and Cyprian revises his De Unitate to match), there seems to be a double view of the chair of Peter, as head of the catholic Church. All bishops together hold the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome holds the chair of Peter. From what I can tell, Catholicism holds to both of these (I asked whether this was true, and so far nobody has answered me), and Orthodoxy only holds to the first.

The Catholic position is,

Bishops hold the position of the apostles, the pope of Rome to the position of St Peter. Explained in the next section

Galdre:

If you hold to the first, then a council can be ecumenically authoritative so long as it is ecumenically representative. Because it is impossible for everyone to come to the council, representation and ratification become very important. It needs to be universally ratified. Representation at the council isn’t necessary, but it will definitely help it acquire universal acceptance. Thus, even though the pentarchy is man-made, it can still be important, because of the representation accorded to the members of the pentarchy by those churches in their regions. Am I wrong?

back on pg 9 post #127 I posted

then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote re: 1st among equals

:
:

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the *Pentarchy *gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…orelle_en.html

Galdre:

If you also hold to the second, then a council can be ecumenically authoritative so long as it is ratified as such by the bishop of Rome.

Chalcedon seems to pose a problem. A huge section of the Church (traditionally called “Nestorian”) disagreed, but the west (and by the west I mean the entire Roman empire, for even the “east” was western in terms of the expansion of Christianity) deems them heretical and schismatics. But why? I asked this of the local Orthodox priest, and this is how the conversation went (as word for word as I can recall):

Me: Why is Chalcedon considered ecumenical? A huge section of the Church disagreed with it, and the only reason they aren’t a huge voice now is that the Muslims killed them off several centuries later.

1. 
   *]Re: Chalcedon, there was rejection of Canon 28 by the pope, but as I understand, the other 27 canons were agreed upon.
   *]I’m not saying this is the reason for your 2nd point, but maybe (as an observation) because the East divided among 4 patriarchs, it weakened them individually, against Islam the aggressor who was one. And Islam was able to conquor the East.

 

[bilboj1]

I don’t believe the orthodox church is false and neither do I believe the Roman church is false. I think there history is founded in the same beliefs, but the egos of men have brought about division. Hopefully the reunification of the churches is in the future since talks have opened up last fall about reunification:

“Vatican joins historic talks to end 950-year rift with Orthodox church” - The Times (London)​

November 28, 2007

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent and Paul Bompard in Rome

(November 16, 2007 - The Times) The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches took tentative steps towards healing their 950-year rift yesterday by drafting a joint document that acknowledges the primacy of the Pope.

The 46-paragraph “Ravenna Document”, written by a special commission of Catholic and Orthodox officials, envisages a reunified church in which the Pope could be the most senior patriarch among the various Orthodox churches.

Just as Pope John Paul II was driven by the desire to bring down Communism, so Pope Benedict XVI hopes passionately to see the restoration of a unified Church. Although he is understood to favour closer relations with traditional Anglicans, the Anglican Communion is unlikely to be party to the discussions because of its ordination of women and other liberal practices.

Unification with the Orthodox churches could ultimately limit the authority of the Pope, lessening the absolute power that he currently enjoys within Catholicism. In contrast, a deal would greatly strengthen the Patriarch of Constantinople in his dealings with the Muslim world and the other Orthodox churches.

Pope Benedict has called a meeting of cardinals from all over the world in Rome on November 23, when the document will be the main topic of discussion. The Ravenna “road map” concedes that “elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion”.

It suggests that means “be sought out” to set up a new ecumenical council, similar to those of the early Church which drew up the Nicene and other creeds, and to which Catholic and Orthodox bishops would be invited. Such a council would attempt formally to end the schism of 1054 between East and West.

If the proposals move forward, the Pope would be acknowledged as the universal Primate, as he was before the schism. Although it is not stated outright, he would be expected by the Orthodox churches to relinquish the doctrine of infallibility. The proposals could also allow married priests in the Catholic Church, as already happens in the Orthodox.

However, continuing disputes within the Orthodox Church between Constantinople and Moscow mean that there is unlikely to be agreement among the entire Orthodox community about reconciliation with Rome.

The document, The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church, has been produced by a commission of Orthodox and Catholic bishops and theologians that met in Ravenna in western Italy last month. The Russian delegate walked out of the meeting, an indication of the enduring disputes within the Orthodox Church.

Referring to the early councils of the Church, whose decisions are still central to doctrine throughout Christendom, the document adds: “In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches – in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires – recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils.” These councils, which assembled bishops from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, are still regarded as binding by Catholics and the Orthodox in particular. “The means which will allow the reestablishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out,” the document states.

The Catholics at the Ravenna meeting were led by Cardinal Walter Kasper, of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Orthodox were headed by Metropolitan Zizioulas, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

A delegate from Moscow blamed Constantinople for upsetting the talks, and the final text published by the Vatican was agreed without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Moscow Patriarchate. After Rome and Constantinople, Moscow is agreed to be third in the hierarchy of “equals”, but it is still at odds with Rome over the Uniate Catholics in Ukraine, whose loyalty is to the Pope.

If the Orthodox were able to move closer to Rome, the Constantinople Patriarchate would have much stronger influence in its dialogue with the Muslim world in Turkey and beyond. Healing the schism would in effect turn Patriarch Bartholomew into an Orthodox “Pope”.

The document suggests that the Pope, always referred to in the text as “Bishop of Rome”, could be the “first” among the regional patriarchs. But this would be only as a primus inter pares, with his authority resting firmly on the support and consensus of the other patriarchs. “Certainly Rome could not be the absolute centre of administration, with authority over all the others,” Greek Metropolitan Athanasios Chatzopoulos, one of the participants of the Ravenna conference, said. “The ‘primus’ would not be able to do anything without the consent of the other Patriarchs.”

Let us pray that the division between the churches be healed for we do need a common front in these end times.

 

[Evlogitos]

Last reply for now. This is a great debate, but the post length is, obviously, a drain on time. Pascha’s comin’ up, and after that, law school finals. If this is still alive when I again have the option of time commitment, I’ll be happy to pick it up back up.

John:

In spite of the skeptics, I’m inclined to believe the veracity of the Holy Light. It has verifiably taken place regularly for over nine hundred and fifty years (and there are mentions of it in basically its present form over two hundred years older, with implications that it may in fact be among the most ancient Christian traditions), which is a pretty long time to fake anything sequentially. In addition, what distinguishes it from most other miraculous experiences is that, unlike a vision that appears for a couple weeks to a handful of the faithful or some such, the Holy Light is open to the public and to all faiths, has been occurring like clockwork for at least a millennium, is openly recognized as a valid miracle by non-Orthodox (at least the Armenian and Coptic patriarchs), and most importantly, has obstinately refused to occur for anyone save the Orthodox. Of course there are skeptics, but what I find surprising is that, for a public thousand-year miracle, the number of confirmed skeptics who have actually been present at the appearance of the Holy Light is staggeringly (and tellingly) small. In addition, there is eyewitness testimony from hundreds of people (several of my personal acquaintance) that the Fire does not burn, and that light often comes out of the tomb, preceding the Patriarch’s exit, and spontaneously lights some of the candles. We even have the published account of a doubter who actually claims to have been within the Tomb at the time the Light appeared.

If it is a valid miracle, what (if any) are the implications of the fact that it occurs at possibly the most sacred spot in Christendom, replicates some of the greatest signs in Christian history (Pentecost/burning bush), and is exclusive to the Orthodox?

 

[Evlogitos]

Steve:

working backwards in time

AFTER Byzantium became Constatinople,(early 300’s) Church of Rome was still first even though the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople

Because Rome was bigger, older, better-established, still more important, and had retained its imperial capital status until a few short months before under Licinius. Nicea I established the rank as being Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (the three biggest and most important cities in the Empire with Apostolic foundations), and then Jerusalem for reasons more honorary than otherwise.

Cyprians writes(mid 200’s) Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter, and the source of priestly unity.

Cyprian actually identifies the Chair of Peter with the episcopal office generally (compare Ignatius “where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church”). Even Catholic scholars agree on this, although they further assert that Cyprian speaks of the Chair of Peter on several levels which includes the papacy at the universal level.

Irenaeus writes (late 100’s) all must agree with Church of Rome

Inapplicable in the sense you give it. Already dealt with.

Ignatius writes (early 100’s) Church of Rome held the presidency

Rather, he began his epistle to the Romans:

“To the church… which presideth in the country of the Romans… which presideth in [some translators render “over”] agape.”

Needless to say this is an extremely tenuous statement upon which to pin an argument for the papacy. Reasonable alternative explanations:

1. The Roman church “presideth in love,” “in the country of the Romans.” i.e., the Church at Rome has primacy over what would later become the Italian metropolitanate. While this perhaps gives Rome an early inkling of patriarchal jurisdiction, it lends no weight to a modern papacy.
2. The reference to “presideth in love” is a complimentary reference to Rome’s great and frequent generosity toward needy foreign churches (cf. Dionysius of Corinth).
3. Even assuming the reference to be a statement that Rome occupies the first place amongst the churches, this is not repugnant to an Orthodox understanding in any way, and does not suggest any sort of divine or universal authority. One must read in papal prerogatives ex post facto in order to transform Ignatius into an RCC apologist.

Clement (during apostolic times) Corinth looked to Church of Rome for settlement of their sedition

And we have exactly zero evidence either way as to why Corinth specifically appealed to Clement for resolution. Given the uncertainty in dating Clement’s epistle, the sedition at Corinth could well have taken place during John’s exile to Patmos, whence it would have been exceedingly difficult to get a hold of the blessed Apostle.

In such circumstance, the Corinthians would doubtless have defaulted to the most eminent church for resolution. Jerusalem, during this period, would have been a natural pick, except that it was in utter chaos following its devastation by Titus. Thus, it is natural that appeal would have been made to the large and prospering church at the imperial capital, place of the martyrdom of the two most famous apostles (including, tellingly, Paul, founder of the Corinthian Church). As such, while Clement’s epistle certainly speaks greatly to the early prominence of the Roman Church, it gives exactly zero weight to any arguments in favour of papal supremacy.

You have to admit history shows a constant theme that the Church of Rome is pre eminent…not because of politics, not because of size, but because of it being the chair of Peter

Actually, because of all three. No church historian is so foolish as to suggest that Rome’s influence did not in great part stem from its temporal position as the enormous and influential seat of the Empire. In addition, because of Peter’s position as first among the Apostles, the Petrine Sees were given early prominence. Gregory the Great says the Chair of Peter is established in three places: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. (Alexandria was not founded by Peter himself, but rather Mark the Evangelist, but his status as a disciple of Peter apparently elevated Alexandria to a Petrine see in the minds of the people.) It is interesting that the three churches occupying the highest ranks at the First Ecumenical Council were all the Petrine Sees. Even Jerusalem, as the birthplace of the Church and the beginning of Peter’s ministry, arguably had a “touch of the magic,” as it were.

So, sure, everybody admits Peter was first among the Apostles, and everybody admits Rome, historically, was first among the Churches. It takes a lot of wriggling around and eisegesis, however, to argue that history proves by preponderance of the evidence that Rome had a unique and universal divine mandate from day one. It’s easy to conflate the idea of primacy with the idea of exclusive and universal supremacy, but the distinction exists.

if as you say above, Alexandria claims nearly equal apostolicity to Antioch, then you acknowledge there were differences in apostolicity, Agreed? And Rome because of Peter, has always held the cheif position.

Alexandria’s claim to Petrine foundation is far less direct than that of Rome or Antioch, yet Alexandria got second place after Rome, and coincidentally (or so you suggest) happened to be the second most important city in the Empire after–you guessed it–Rome. It is ludicrous to suggest that historical Roman primacy is exclusively based on the strength of its Petrine connections. As explained above, the three top dogs in the early Church were three huge and important cities with Apostolic foundation. Again, nobody argues that Rome acquired a de facto position of primacy very early on, probably in about 69 A.D. when Peter and Paul were freshly martyred and all hell broke loose in Jerusalem.

 

[Evlogitos]

What do secular criteria have to do with apostolicity or importance for the Church? Church and state were diametrically opposed to each other…

Re: Irenaeus, he wasn’t using a political argument, he was using an eccleastical argument based on Peter and Paul, and THEIR tradition being passed on as the litmus for everyone needing to agree with Rome.

Oh, poppycock. Irenaeus points to the “very great, very ancient, and universally known” church at Rome. These are all secular and objective criteria. Rome was ancient, as one of the Apostolic churches. Rome was great and universally known, as the seat of the Empire, the largest city in the known world, etc. He then proceeds to enumerate how Rome passed down the Tradition, whereupon cf. everything previously said in this thread about how, grammatically and logically, it is highly unlikely that Irenaeus is making an argument for Roman supremacy.

I also like how you’ve totally glossed over my point that there is not a single independent Latin source suggesting that convenire ad means “agree with.”

There is no reason if one makes no differentiation between apostles, and one is assuming equalness. The fact there WAS a difference, and all were not considered equal, shows the Church made distinctions…true?

The Church has always made distinctions. The Bishop of Alexandria was always going to pack more oomph than the Bishop of Buzzardbreath, Negev. My point here is that you are completely wrongheaded in suggesting that the importance of various churches was based entirely on their apostolic claims. If this were the case, then Antioch, which was founded by Peter, frequented by Paul, and (IIRC) presided over for some time by John, would surely have occupied the second place after Rome. Or why not Jerusalem, being the cornerstone of all Christianity, the site of the Lord’s death and resurrection, in which several of the Apostles lived and died?

And yet Alexandria, with its secondary claim to Petrine foundation (via Mark), received the second place. There is no way to explain it other than concluding that episcopal status in the early Church was based primarily on the temporal influence of the given city, combined with a strong apostolic (particularly Petrine) claim.

If you take this position, then why is Istanbul/Constantinople still 1st in the East? The Russian Orthodox comprise the majority of Orthodox Christians. Why isn’t Moscow #1?

1. The issue has not been legislated via Ecumenical Council, which would be the only way at present to “officially” alter the rankings.
2. The ecclesiastical rankings, once set, are extremely resistant to change, for obvious and very human reasons. We see this in the difficulty Constantinople experienced in obtaining the number two spot.
3. Even in the event that this issue were to come up again, Moscow would be unlikely to be accorded first place, because it doesn’t have Apostolic foundations. Speculatively, I would say the ranks would likely stay the same on the basis of honorable custom (cf. the status of Jerusalem).

Looking at the progression the Church of Rome has played, and taking Ignatius statement, do nothing without the bishop, because where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church, it’s definitional that when Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome, he is absolutely including the bishop of Rome, therefore papal perogatives, and Roman supremacy go together…

Including, yes, but not exalting. Irenaeus definitely refers in part to the bishop of Rome when he speaks of the eminence and purity of the Church at Rome. However, it’s a monstrous conflation to try and shunt this into an argument on papal exclusivity, basically making “Church at Rome” equal “bishop of Rome” while completely ignoring the faithful from everywhere who have preserved the Tradition. Also, see again my reference above of your failure to establish your supposed definition of convenire ad.

tdesq:

That is the question I’m asking you! What bishops are necessary? Apparently not the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Alexandria was represented at Chalcedon.

And you are wrong about the Copts. They were not anathemized by Chalcedon, they just refused to ratify it, and every other council since.

Chalcedon anathematized those who refused to accept the Tome of Leo. The Copts refused to accept the Tome, and as I’m sure you know, Dioscorus went so far as to excommunicate Leo, ostensibly for heresy (and never retracted it). Coptic theology ever since has refused to accept the Chalcedonian formulation, and has thus placed itself under Chalcedonian anathema. This is backed up later on by, e.g., the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized those who append the non-Chalcedonian formulation “who was crucified for us” to the Trisagion – which formulation, incidentally, exists in the Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil to this day. I’ll admit one can make a fairly decent argument based on the fact that the Copts were not explicitly anathematized at Chalcedon, but history suggests they were.

Then give me your conception. In my mind you have things precisely backwards. The reason we have a visible teaching authority is so that we can know without making an independent inquiry every time which bishop or group of bishops are teaching heresy. What good is a teaching authority if you can’t define it and locate it?

The thing is, you seem to be suggesting Orthodoxy necessitates an open invitation not only to those whose orthodoxy is in dispute, but even to those who have already been authoritatively confirmed as heretical. If there’s a question of orthodoxy, of course one refers it to a synod. See the history of the Palamite Councils for a good example of the Orthodox principle in action without any possible excuse that Rome was holding things together.

 

[Evlogitos]

Thank you for the test, but I find it extraordinarily arbitrary.

Whereas “the Pope decides it’s ecumenical” is not arbitrary?

You will not find any early ECFs that support it, because the concept of the Pentarchy is late fifth early sixth century stuff. It would have been an unknown concept at the time of Nicaea I.

This was eventually the understanding that developed. Even from your Catholic perspective, you’ll note that, pre-Schism, the bishop of Rome did not declare any council Ecumenical that did not have the participation of the Pentarchy.

And that raises another question. If papal supremacy was a dogmatic portion of the “faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all,” then how did the Arian controversy roil up so powerfully? Why didn’t the Pope simply wave a hand, excommunicate Arius, and then watch as every pious bishop in Christendom lined up behind him?

What made things come to such a head that the Emperor demanded a resolution by the whole Church?

The other factors are just as arbitrary, and I doubt can be supported by the early ECFs. The “eventual acceptance by the Church” factor is so vague as to nearly be useless as guidance.

Not at all. Christ is with the Church–and only the Church–until the end of the aeon. As such, the Truth will always win out.

Furthermore, it accords power to the patriarchs which I believe most of the Orthodox would reject today.

With all due respect, you are massively incorrect. How could a council possibly be ecumenical, representing the universal and primordial Faith, without the voices of the holiest, most ancient, and most honoured Churches?

So now you flip a 180 on Schaff that you declared triumphantly in your last post supported your position. Now suddenly he isn’t a reliable source because he doesn’t say what you want to hear?

He does say what I want to hear: that the Pope explicitly approved the council, and disavowed the 869 council as a latrocinium (going so far as to expunge the acts of 869 from the records). That he later reneged on his ratification–a fact which is historically in greater and greater dispute as research and time go on–is irrelevant, unless you want to concede that the Pope could unilaterally “un-ecumenize” any of the previous Ecumenical Councils if he changed his mind on the subject.

However, I am not at all sure that Schaff is correct about John’s reversal of position. It is my understanding that Dvornik, in a seminal work on the subject, has decisively established John’s purported subsequent excommunication of Photius as utterly spurious. There appears to be growing scholarly consensus on this issue.

nicenetruth.com/home/2007/12/the-two-eighth.html

myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_16.html

As a side note, if I’m reading Dvornik correctly, he makes the very interesting point that it was through Photius’ persuasive influence at the Photian Synod that the Patriarchs (incl. Rome) accepted Nicea II as ecumenical.

Neither Tanner nor Dvornik deny that Pope John was misled about the proceedings by his legates, whose predecessors had been bribed before in the whole sordid affair between Ignatius and Photius.

Near as I can determine, the only purported way in which John was misled was that his legates omitted his assertion of absolute papal supremacy in bringing the papal opinion to the attention of the synod. All sources indicate that, in spite of this, John accepted the acts of the synod.

And nice try at poisoning the well.

And how does any of this help you to identify which two of these councils, if either, were ecumenical? All you’ve done is demonstrate how it appears to be historically impossible to tell, which bodes ill for you when it comes to identifying teaching authority.

I don’t believe it is impossible to tell. It indicates, however, the great weakness in putting all one’s dogmatic trust in a single and possibly quite ill-informed source.

If Pope John VIII did indeed ratify the councils of 879-80, and did not subsequently excommunicate Photius, what are the implications to the Catholic position, in your eyes?

Tah dah! Yes indeed, and others like T.R. Valentine accept nine councils as ecumenical. Others accept seven. How many do you accept? I hope you are beginning to see the problem.

The problem is not one of authority but of enumeration. There is not an Orthodox Christian in existence who does not consider the acts of the Photian and Palamite Synods as binding, correct, and true. There are some semantic disputes as to whether to term them “ecumenical” rather than another term (“pan-Orthodox,” sometimes), but their force is universally accepted. Don’t the Catholics have an reasonable equivalent in Orange II?

I believe one of the links above (and/or the link to Dvornik) provides reference to the fact that Rome itself only recognized seven ecumenical councils until long after the Great Schism.

In addition, it is universally acknowledged that councils purporting themselves to be of ecumenical scope nearly always took vast amounts of time to be ratified as decisively ecumenical. So I don’t see the problem.

Go back up and refer to your proposed criteria for an ecumenical council. It doesn’t include how many bishops signed off on the documents or how many attended the council. The number of bishops doesn’t matter according to your criterion.

Technically correct, but low attendance (particularly of the extraordinary dimensions of the 869 council) raises questions of how ecumenical the synod really is, and to what degree it actually acts as representative of the whole Church.

 

[Evlogitos]

I have never read anywhere that any of the legates were fakes. You had better back that one up. Perhaps there were fakes at Nicaea I too. I wonder what that would mean for the ecumenity of a council?

See the link to Fr. George’s article, n. 6. I’ve read the same claim in other documentation, but the alternate source escapes me for the moment.

Your speculation is nice, but it’s not a question that needs addressing unless you provide some indication that the Pentarchy received spurious representation at an ecumenical council.

Um, how about the Patriarch of Alexandria?

…

The Council of Chalcedon, Canon 30.

There is no canon 30 of Chalcedon. Chalcedon produced twenty-eight canons. You reference a quasi-canon from the minutes of the synod. You forget Alexandra did receive representation at Chalcedon in the form of Dioscorus, who was summarily deposed, thus leaving the See of Alexandria open, replaced by Proterius (I’m fuzzy as to whether he was locum tenens or fully Patriarch at Chalcedon, though he definitely obtained the full patriarchate later). As such, this provides no problems to questions of ecumenicity. The Pentarchy was represented.

Galdre:

tdgesq is hammering a point that has troubled me for a while – the authority of councils.

…

Now, where does the authority of a council lie? Certainly, a large collection of godly bishops has great “moral authority,” but… on what basis can a council be considered authoritative? This is not a rhetorical question.

It is the position of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that the whole Church, in council, possesses a charism of the Holy Spirit for direction of the Church. See Acts 15, and my apologies if I’m misinterpreting what you’ve asked.

At least in Cyprian’s first conception (this seems to change later, and Cyprian revises his De Unitate to match), there seems to be a double view of the chair of Peter, as head of the catholic Church. All bishops together hold the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome holds the chair of Peter. From what I can tell, Catholicism holds to both of these (I asked whether this was true, and so far nobody has answered me), and Orthodoxy only holds to the first.

Carlton, in The Truth, suggests that Cyprian ultimately held to an Orthodox understanding of church governance. (Alas, I don’t have it with me, and it’s been too long since I read it to cover specifics of his argument.) It should be noted, Orthodoxy generally has no problem accepting that the bishop of Rome is first in the Church and is a principle of unity therein; it is the inflated prerogatives claimed thereby that are in dispute.

…a council can be ecumenically authoritative so long as it is ecumenically representative. Because it is impossible for everyone to come to the council, representation and ratification become very important. It needs to be universally ratified. Representation at the council isn’t necessary, but it will definitely help it acquire universal acceptance. Thus, even though the pentarchy is man-made, it can still be important, because of the representation accorded to the members of the pentarchy by those churches in their regions. Am I wrong?

You are basically correct. I think “general” works better than “universal” as far as ratification goes, though.

Chalcedon seems to pose a problem. A huge section of the Church (traditionally called “Nestorian”) disagreed, but the west (and by the west I mean the entire Roman empire, for even the “east” was western in terms of the expansion of Christianity) deems them heretical and schismatics. But why?

…

Can some of you guys help me here? These aren’t rhetorical questions. I honestly want to know what I’m missing.

This article might perhaps help a bit:

edengrace.org/conciliar.html

Getting down to brass tacks, I’m not sure I see why Chalcedon would not have been ecumenical. It was legitimately convoked, represented the great Sees of the East and West, was exceptionally well-attended, and made a dogmatic pronunciation. Some folks rebelled against the acts of the council (as much for political and ethnic reasons as religious), but why would this have made it unecumenical?

Think also of the Seventh council. It had been preceded by a latrocinium with no Pentarchical representation, but had been quite well-attended (338 bishops). The Seventh council had no qualms about ruthlessly putting down the decrees of the 754 latrocinium, with Pentarchical representation, and was about equally attended (350 bishops). However, there was significant dissent that almost immediately suppressed the results of the Seventh council. It was not 'til 842 that the Iconodules triumphed.

I suppose in the end I’d refer you to the much-discussed passage from Irenaeus, by analogy. The bishops in convocation have the power to effect decrees, which is checked and balanced on the other side by the faith of the laity.

It’s a hard question, though. It’s not simply communion with Rome, or agreement with a proclamation, that defines the Church… but rather, obedience to received Truth, as St. Maximos the Confessor (himself not at all anti-Roman) points out:

*“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. ”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”*

 

[Evlogitos]

Or St. Basil the Great, on Meletius:

I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome… But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him… I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him [Paulinus] as in communion with the saints.

Thus, ultimately, the answer is that one must follow paradosis, the flow of tradition. Fundamentally, a true ecumenical council is one that describes the pre-extant Truth which has been preserved since Christ. I realize it sounds like a highly subjective and unsatisfying answer, but ultimately that’s where the buck stops. There are some objective measures, as I’ve suggested. I admit I’m not an expert on the subject, but I’ll keep chiming in as I learn and ponder more.

Alexander Schmemann:

[T]
he great variety of existing patterns – from the almost absolute “monarchy” of the Russian Patriarch to the more or less nominal primacy of the Archbishop of Athens – reveals the absence of a common understanding of primacy, or of a consistent canonical theory of it…What are, in other terms, the criteria of canonicity?
…
As to the regional and universal types of primacy, there does not even exist a de facto consensus of Orthodox opinion. Regional primacy, although it is clearly sanctioned by our canonical tradition, has practically disappeared from the structure and the life of the Orthodox Churches in the triumph of centralized autocephalies. And the idea of universal primacy is either rejected as alien to the very spirit of Orthodoxy or formulated in terms so vague and ambiguous that, instead of solving, they only obscure the whole of primacy.
…
Among Roman Catholic theologians, there is a growing interest, and not only a “polemical” one, in Orthodox views on primacy…there are thus reasons for a genuinely theological reconsideration of the whole question. And even if no final answer can be given immediately, it will not be reached without a sustained theological effort.
…
Having rejected and still rejecting it [supreme power] in its Roman form, i.e., as universal power, the Orthodox conscience has easily accepted it in the so-called “autocephalies.”
…
The rejection of Roman errors did not result in a positive elaboration of the Orthodox doctrine, as was the case after the condemnation of Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. Our ecclesiology is still lacking…

I do agree with Fr. Alexander that with a changing world it is perhaps necessary to reevaluate the pragmatism of our structural ecclesiology, which is still in many ways based on Roman provincialism.

Orthodoxy is indeed fairly fluid in places, being concerned more with the practice of the Faith than the administration of the same. This is both a great blessing and at times a great difficulty.

Nicholas Afanassieff:

The Orthodox Church is absolutely right in refusing to recognize the contemporary doctrine that primacy belongs to the Bishop of Rome; however, this rightness does not lie in the numerous arguments that has been brought against primacy, but in the very fact of non-recognition. The arguments against primacy offered by Orthodox school-theology seem to suffer from some lack of clarity and finish…Orthodox theology indeed rejects the idea of primacy on the universal scale, but it recognizes a partial primacy at the center of every autocephalous church, a primacy belonging to the head of that church…The autocephalous churches, meanwhile, have become divided and separated, for the idea of a single directive has faded since the fall of Byzantium…In modern times, the unity of the Orthodox Church is becoming a sort of abstract ideal, with no means of manifesting itself in the real life of the Church…In the long course of the struggle against the Roman Catholic position about the primacy of Rome, Orthodox doctrine has lost the very notion of priority.

See above. At risk of perhaps overplaying my hand, I actually happen to think that Roman primacy is an exceptionally good thing, and that it is a supreme tragedy that our Latin brethren sundered themselves from us. Virtually all the major problems of modern Orthodoxy would be solved in a single stroke with a somewhat meeker and more moderately-endowed papacy as visible head of the Church, and vice versa: the Orthodox could benefit from some canny and vigorous priority, while the Catholics could benefit from some enhanced asceticism and liturgical rigor. I don’t know how far it would get us, but I would certainly support both sides basically wiping the post-1054 slate clean and locking themselves in a room 'til everything got hashed out.

 

[Evlogitos]

For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement. But that you may know that we have done nothing for favour or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.

I see rhetorical flourishes fairly typical of the time (cf. the homilies of John Chrysostom), with typical deference to the office of someone whose favour one wished to court. I also see the note of authority underlying the overweaningly humble language; note that the Chalcedonians consider their acts to be “guided by the Divine Will.”

If Rome’s papist claims were unorthodox, then why do we never see any orthodox theologian take issue with their (blatant and explicit) claims? … I have seen no doctrinal correction of Rome with regard to her own position.

For the most part, the Westerners were well and content to be under papal protection and jurisdiction, since Rome was Patriarch of the West, had a great track record of orthodoxy, and the papacy was a rock of stability in the bleak and tumultuous collapse of Western civilization during the Dark Ages. The East was, as you might guess, far away from the West, and the West’s jurisdictional influence was distinctly limited for the most part. In addition, the East was always the hotbed of theological study and speculation, and thus of heresy, which meant that generally the East had bigger things to worry about than what the Pope thought of himself. And of course, given the good record of Roman orthodoxy, quite a few persecuted folks appealed to Rome for intervention on their behalf. In such cases, it would be absolutely ludicrous for the petitioner to both annoy Rome and simultaneously weaken his case for appeal by lecturing Rome on its proper jurisdiction. In later centuries, the false Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals played their negative part.

Not to say, however, that nobody ever wrote of the necessity of checking Roman jurisdiction; for example, Cyprian.

And finally, John:

1. What, if anything, makes a council valid, and can you provide some Patristic support for your position? (i.e. some early pre-schism Father speaking about the nature of an ecumenical council)

1. How can a person define what is right doctrine, without a single head by which the truth can be known?

1. I can’t think of any particular early Father who actually sat down and discussed the nature of ecumenical conciliarism. Truly ecumenical councils in the first millennium of Christianity were always determined ex post facto.

What makes an ecumenical council ecumenical is its universal scope, and conformity to the received Truth. Obviously this is a fairly subjective answer, but it is a true one. As I suggested earlier, we can look back and see that a given council is ecumenical via the participation/ratification of the great Patriarchates and the bishops, its self-declaration of ecumenical character, its descriptions of dogma, and its eventual acceptance by the Church. These concepts are holistic rather than legalistic; something of a sliding scale, if you will. For example, there was considerable episcopal unanimity at Chalcedon, but fairly vigorous (although not majority) laity resistance. At Florence, there was a high degree of episcopal unanimity (although I would argue it the dissent may have been sufficient to strip the council of ecumenical character, since St. Mark of Ephesus represented the Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem), but the rejection by the laity was absolute.

FYI, an acquaintance informs me that the Seventh Ecumenical Council contains a definition of ecumenical conciliarity. I’m skeptical, but if he says anything worthwhile, I’ll let y’all know what he says on the subject.

1. I would contend that the true Church speaks with one voice. On a more pragmatic level, conciliar bodies are capable of putting forth harmonious decisions. Think of Congress, or the Supreme Court. Both are conciliar bodies, and there can be sharp dissent and internal strife amongst them, yet at the end of the day, they put forth decisions by which all are bound.

Anyway, I’m about to drop dead from writing. Hope at least some of this helps. Happy Pascha, all!

 

[Galdre]

Goodness gracious. And thank you. Happy Pascha!

 

[anthony022071]

Or St. Basil the Great, on Meletius:

I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome… But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him… I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him [Paulinus] as in communion with the saints.

Thus, ultimately, the answer is that one must follow paradosis, the flow of tradition.

Anyone can say that they are following the flow of tradition,even as they are being schismatic. Tertullian probably thought he was upholding tradition when he opposed Pope Callistus on the admission of adulterers to communion after due penance. But he was in the wrong and turned schismatic and heretical. The Pope had the authority to “bind and loosen”. The ultimate authority and point of reference for orthodoxy in the Church was not tradition any more than it was scripture. It was the Chair of Peter.

Basil wrote to Pope Damasus:

“It is these [heretics] that we implore your diligence to denounce publicly to all the churches of the East. . . . I am constrained to mention them by name, in order that you may yourselves recognize those who are stirring up disturbance here, and may make them known to our Churches. . . . You, however, have all the more credit with the people, in proportion to the distance that separates your home from theirs, besides the fact that you are gifted with God’s grace to help those who are distresses."

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honorable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties. . . . * been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us. . . . In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well for soundness of faith as for all other virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caesarea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.”

Basil wrote to Athanasius:

“It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the Bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labors of a journey,—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here.”

[Why would Basil appeal to the pope to denounce the heretics publicly to all the churches in the East,and to examine the condition of the church of Caesarea and correct the unruly there unless the pope really did have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church?]*

 

[John214]

Well, we have seen some answers on the Orthodox side to the questions I posed, but I am still waiting for answers on the Catholic side for answers to these four questions:

1)It has been mentioned that the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly stated that the reason that Rome had it’s place was based on its imperial authority. Granted Rome rejected this, does it not show that at least the majority idea (within the East at the least) was that Rome’s primacy was based on this? Keep in mind this was in the 450s and that over 500 bishops attended.

1. How can we know that a Pope is valid, or legitimate, as has been said earlier. Are there not cases where a Pope declares a Pope from many years earlier anti-Pope? Supposing, I say that I would like to become a Catholic, but I believe the current Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope (I really don’t though), how could you assure me that he is indeed not an anti-Pope? (Note: it is not right to accuse the Orthodox side of having the same problem, as it means little if one Patriarch was an anti-Patriarch, given that he is neither the Supreme Head, nor infallible)
2. Related to question (2), if you answer that it is by the witness of the Vatican or Church Body, then does this not defeat the purpose of a single head which determines truth?
3. If the truth is guarded and protected, and to a large extent dictated (in a good way if the RCC is true) by the Bishop of Rome, then why are “Ecumenical” councils necessary? The word ecumenical means the whole, so it would only follow that it’s ecumenical nature comes from its representation of the whole Church. I will give a hypothetical situation to illustrate:

Example 4) Suppose the Church called an ecumenical council where all Bishops were represented, including the Pope. Suppose 700 Bishops were present. Now, suppose that the Council votes on an issue and 690 vote one way, and the Pope and 9 others vote against.

In example 4, which side would win, and could this council be called ecumenical? If it could not be called ecumenical then why not, and what would you call it?